The effect of using Kahoot! for learning – A literature review

May combine two claims.

A quasi-experiment in a programming course found many positive effects for gamified teaching using Who-Wants-To-Become-A-Millionaire, Kahoot! and Codeacademy programming, including improved class attendance, less late arrivals, higher downloads of course material, improved classroom dynamics, and higher final grade (61% for gamified vs. 53% for traditional).

“The results showed many positive effects for the gamified approach, including improved class attendance, less late arrivals to class, higher downloads of course material, improved classroom dynamics, and higher final grade (61% for gamified vs. 53% for traditional).”

• cites Fotaris, Mastoras, Leinfellner, & Rosunally, 2016Supported

May combine two claims.

In one study where Kahoot! was used for teaching Chinese, using Kahoot! had a significant improvement in the competences of reading and speaking, but not for listening nor vocabulary.

“In one study where Kahoot! was used for teaching Chinese, using Kahoot!had a significant improvement in the competences of reading and speaking, but not for listening nor vocabulary (X.Liu & Wang, 2017).”

• cites X.Liu & Wang, 2017Supported

May combine two claims.

A study among 65 Preschool teacher students in Turkey evaluated Kahoot! very positively, including its ability to increase students' interest in the lesson, increase students' motivation, help students understand the lesson better, and encourage learners (Bicen & Kocakoyun, 2018).

“Similarly, a study among 65 Preschool teacher students in Turkey evaluated Kahoot!very positively, including its ability to increase students' interest in the lesson, increase students' motivation, helping students' to understand the lesson better, and that it encourages learners (Bicen & Kocakoyun, 2018).”

• cites Bicen & Kocakoyun, 2018 sourcePartly supported

  Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

  Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

That study showed that teachers' motivation increased significantly after starting to use Kahoot! (p = .001) and that Kahoot! enhanced their teaching, was entertaining, resulted in better teaching, and increased attention and concentration.

“The study showed that teachers' motivation increased significantly after starting to use Kahoot!(p ¼ .001)and that Kahoot!enhanced their teaching, was entertaining, resulted in better teaching, and increased attention and concentration.”

• cites Yapıcı & Karakoyun, 2017 sourcePartly supported

  The motivation-scale findings report a significant increase for 15 preservice biology teachers, and Table 3 gives p = .001. The positive-aspects table reports entertainment, attention and concentration. But the section on future use presents more effective teaching as the preservice teachers’ expectation, not a measured improvement in their teaching. (LLM, conf=0.88)

  Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

Negative comments in that study were related to persons failing the quiz and lack of technical infrastructure.

“Negative comments were related to persons failing the quiz and lack of technical infrastructure.”

• cites Yapıcı & Karakoyun, 2017 sourcePartly supported

  Table 4 (Suggestions; page unavailable) lists failing the quiz and technological insufficiency as the two negative views. The accompanying text and Conclusion and Discussion specify that the latter meant students’ lack of technological skills, not a lack of technical infrastructure. (LLM, conf=0.88)

  Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

May combine two claims.

Articles on Kahoot! and student anxiety without statistical analysis reported findings such as lower fear of asking questions and positive ratings of courage and low stress.

“The articles on Kahoot and student anxiety that did not include any statistical analysis include findings such as 56% of students following traditional teaching were afraid to ask questions in class compared to 37% for those who played Kahoot! in class (Budiati, 2017); students rated the statements”

• cites Budiati, 2017Not checked — no full text of the source
• cites Bicen & Kocakoyun, 2018 sourcePartly supported

  Table 3 (section 6) reports a positive rating for the statement that Kahoot builds students’ courage to participate (mean 4.46, SD 0.63). The paper’s Data analysis section (3.5) describes means, standard deviations, frequencies and percentages, rather than inferential tests. I found no result on low stress; the 56% versus 37% comparison is attributed to Budiati (2017) in the citing sentence, not to this paper. (LLM, conf=0.84)

  Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
• cites M.Ismail et al., 2018 sourcePartly supported

  Section 3.1 reports a rating for the statement that gamification makes learning less stressful. The cited paper does not report reduced fear of asking questions or positive ratings of courage. Moreover, sections 2.2 and 3 explicitly describe descriptive statistical analysis, so it is inaccurate to characterize this paper as having no statistical analysis. The 56% and 37% figures are attributed to Budiati, not this source. (LLM, conf=0.86)

  Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

May combine two claims.

In that study, the anxiety score for Socrative was 2.238 and for Kahoot! was 1.871, where a lower value represents less anxiety.

“The anxiety score for Socrative was 2.238, and for Kahoot! it was 1.871, where a lower value represents less anxiety.”

• cites Turan & Meral, 2018 sourceSupported

Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

Further studies report that students found Kahoot! helpful to prepare for the exam, that Kahoot! increased their interest in learning more about what they had learned and that they told others about it, that students' motivation and confidence increased, and they felt more secure and safe in class, and that students felt comfortable answering anonymously in class making the classroom-friendly and,

“Further studies report that students found Kahoot! to be helpful to prepare for the exam (Iwamoto et al., 2017), that Kahoot!increased their interest in learning more about what they had learned and that they told others about it (Budiati, 2017), that the students motivation and confidence increased, and they felt more secure and safe in class (Tsymbal, 2018), and that students felt comfortable”

• cites Iwamoto et al., 2017Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites Budiati, 2017Not checked — no full text of the source
• cites Tsymbal, 2018 sourcePartly supported

  Split into 3 atoms — 0 confirmed, 3 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

  Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Four literature reviews where Kahoot! was mentioned were found.

“In the search for literature, four literature reviews where Kahoot! was mentioned were found.”

May combine two claims. The quote only partly states this claim.

A quasi-experiment with 400 students in an Educational technology course at the University of Florence compared traditional with game-based teaching using Kahoot! through a pre- and post-test on theoretical and practical topics; the results showed that the use of Kahoot! had a significant improvement from pre- to post-test for all topics (p = .001, effect size large), but compared to the传统

“The results showed that the use of Kahoot! had a significant improvement from pre-to post-test for all topics (p ¼ .001,effect size large), but compared to the traditional approach, the Kahoot!group, performed only significantly better on theoretical topics (p ¼ .0001,effect size small) and not on the more practical topics.”

• cites Ranieri, Raffaghelli, & Bruni, 2018Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

May combine two claims.

Thirty-four articles in the literature review explicitly describe how Kahoot! affects classroom dynamics, but only four of these contain any analysis for statistical significance.

“Thirty-four of the articles in our literature review explicitly describe how Kahoot!affects the classroom dynamics, but only four of these contain any analysis for statistical significance.”

May combine two claims.

A quasi-experiment where one group received traditional teaching using paper, while the other received technology-supported learning using Voki, Buncee, Kahoot! and Answergarden, found both groups performed the same on the pre-test, but the technology-supported learning group performed significantly better on the post-test (scored 90%) compared to those who used paper (scored 75%).

“Both groups performed the same on the pre-test, but the technology-supported learning group performed significantly better on the post-test (scored 90%) compared to those who used paper (scored 75%).”

• cites Filologiczna, 2016Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

May combine two claims.

A quasi-experiment in the USA with 49 undergrad students investigated the impact on the final grade of learning of lectures with group discussions vs. lectures with Kahoot! where it was found that Kahoot! made a significant impact on the exam score (p = .008).

“A quasi-experiment in the USA with 49 undergrad students investigated the impact on the final grade of learning of lectures with group discussions vs. lectures with Kahoot!where it was found that Kahoot! made a significant impact on the exam score (p ¼ .008)(Iwamoto et al., 2017).”

• cites Iwamoto et al., 2017Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

May combine two claims.

A quasi-experiment over ten weeks in an English course in Turkey with 43 college students divided into a control group doing group discussions and an experimental group using Kahoot! showed that the control group got an average score of 46.05, and the experimental group an average score of 63.15 (p = .035).

“The results showed that the control group got an average score of 46.05, and the experimental group an average score of 63.15 (p ¼ .035).”

• cites Asmalı, 2018Not checked — no full text of the source

May combine two claims.

In the same study, 20% more students passed the exam with less frequent use of Kahoot! than traditional teaching and 29% with frequent use.

“Further, 20% more students passed the exam with less frequent use of Kahoot! than traditional teaching and 29% with frequent use.”

• cites Ares, Bernal, Nozal, S anchez, & Bernal, 2018Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

May combine two claims.

There are a few studies where Kahoot! did not result in improved learning or did not have a significant positive effect on learning performance.

“However, there are also a few studies where Kahoot! did not result in improved learning.”

• Also stated in: § 5. Conclusions · plain

  “However, there are also few studies where Kahoot! did not have a significant positive effect on learning performance.”

May combine two claims.

Of the thirty-six studies investigating the learning outcome of only using Kahoot! for teaching, six are in the K-12 context, while the rest are with university students.

“Of the thirty-six studies investigating the learning outcome of only using Kahoot!for teaching, six are in the K-12 context (Primary, Secondary, and High School), while the rest are with university students.”

The quote only partly states this claim.

There are exceptions where Kahoot! did not result in a significantly improved learning effect compared to other teaching approaches.

“However, there are some exceptions.”

May combine two claims.

A case study from Portugal with 324 university students showed that with Kahoot! the average grade was improved 6.4% compared to traditional teaching, that weaker students improved their grades with 12%, and fewer failed the course.

“A case study from Portugal with 324 university students showed that with Kahoot! the average grade was improved 6.4% compared to traditional teaching, that weaker students improved their grades with 12%, and fewer failed the course (Esteves, Pereira, Veiga, Vasco, & Veiga, 2017).”

• cites Esteves, Pereira, Veiga, Vasco, & Veiga, 2017Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

May combine two claims.

In a quasi-experiment in Spain with 89 chemistry students, a control group exposed to traditional teaching was compared to two groups using Kahoot! where one was using Kahoot! twice as much as the other; the results showed a significant improvement in the final grade from traditional teaching to the use of Kahoot! (both groups), and that the group using Kahoot! frequently improved more (+38.4%)

“The results showed a significant improvement in the final grade from traditional teaching to the use of Kahoot! (both groups), and that the group using Kahoot!frequently improved more (þ38.4%)than the other (þ32.0%).”

• cites Ares, Bernal, Nozal, S anchez, & Bernal, 2018Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

May combine two claims. The quote only partly states this claim.

A quasi-experiment among 98 nursing students at La Salle University examined how including four 20 min Kahoot! sessions would affect the final examination scores; the results showed that including these Kahoot! sessions had a significant impact on the final examination scores (p = .005).

“The results showed that including these Kahoot!sessions had a significant impact on the final examination scores (p ¼ .005).”

• cites Kinder & Kurz, 2018 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

May combine two claims.

Studies found that Kahoot! positively affected the excitement, engagement, learning experience, and efficiency of the students.

“Studies also found that Kahoot!positively affected the excitement, engagement, learning experience and efficiency of the students”

May combine two claims.

Only four articles related to classroom dynamics include statistical significance tests and two report effect sizes.

“There are only four articles that include statistical significance tests and two that report effect sizes, so more experiments are necessary for a solid conclusion.”

May combine two claims.

Seventy percent of the articles focusing on student anxiety describe studies that report a reduction of student anxiety from playing Kahoot! in class, but only two studies had tests for statistical significance.

“Seventy percent of the articles focusing on student anxiety describe studies that report a reduction of student anxiety from playing Kahoot! in class, but there were only two studies with tests for statistical significance.”

May combine two claims. The quote only partly states this claim.

The challenges or negative issues related to Kahoot! mentioned by teachers included getting the difficulty of questions and answer time right, network connectivity problems, scoring based on how quickly students answer reducing student reflection and causing some students to guess without thinking, some students having a problem with failing a quiz, and some teachers finding it challenging to use

“The challenges or negative issues related to Kahoot! mentioned by teachers in these studies included the challenge of getting the difficulty of questions and answer time right, problems related to network connectivity, scoring based on how quickly the students answer can reduce student reflection and cause some students to guess without thinking, some students can have”

May combine two claims.

Most articles in the literature review investigate how students perceive the use of Kahoot! in the classroom, and eighty-two articles reported findings from the students' point of view.

“Most of the articles found in our literature review investigate how students perceive the use of Kahoot! in the classroom, and eightytwo articles reported findings from the students' point of view.”

May combine two claims.

The main challenges reported by students included technical problems such as unreliable internet connections, hard to read questions and answers on projected screen, not being able to change answer after submission, stressful time-pressure for giving answers, not enough time to answer, afraid of losing, and hard to catch up if an incorrect answer had been given.

“The main challenges reported by students included technical problems such as unreliable internet connections, hard to read questions and answers on projected screen, not being able to change answer after submission, stressful time-pressure for giving answers, not enough time to answer, afraid of losing, and hard to catch up if an incorrect answer had been given.”

May combine two claims.

The literature review found fourteen studies where student anxiety is mentioned, and two of these tested for statistical significance.

“Our literature review found fourteen studies where student anxiety is mentioned, where two tested for statistical significance.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

The challenges mentioned by most articles were unreliable and slow internet connections.

“The challenges mentioned by most articles were unreliable and slow internet connections.”

May combine two claims.

Several articles were left out because they were behind a paywall, most of them published in the proceedings for INTED.

“However, several articles were left out because they were behind a paywall where most of them were published in the proceedings for the International Conference on Technology, Education and Development (INTED).”

May combine two claims.

The main challenges reported by students include technical challenges, hard to read questions and answers on a projected screen, time pressure, afraid of losing, and hard to catch up if an incorrect answer had been given.

“The main challenges reported include technical challenges, hard to read questions and answers on a projected screen, time pressure, afraid of losing, and hard to catch up if an incorrect answer had been given.”

May combine two claims.

Fourteen articles contain results related to student anxiety, and ten articles reported that Kahoot! reduced student anxiety related to asking questions, reduced stress and tension, encouraged participation without being judged, added humor to class, and enabled shy students to get involved.

“Fourteen articles were found that contain results related to student anxiety, and ten articles reported that Kahoot!reduced student anxiety related to asking questions, reduce stress and tension, encourages participation without being judged, add humor to class, and enables shy students to get involved.”

May combine two claims.

Two studies showed a statistically significant reduction of student anxiety, and one study reported that Kahoot! could produce agitation.

“Two studies showed a statistically significant reduction of student anxiety, and one study reported that Kahoot! could produce agitation.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Of the 206 articles, 22 (11%) were reviews or comparisons from a single person.

“Reviews | 22 (11%) | Reviews or comparisons from a single person”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

The literature review shows that several experiments have been conducted on the learning effect of using Kahoot!, but there is still room for empirical studies, especially on classroom dynamics, student anxiety, and perceptions of students and teachers.

“Our literature review shows that there have been conducted several experiments on the learning effect of using Kahoot!but there is still room for empirical studies, especially on classroom dynamics, student anxiety, and perceptions of students and teachers.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

The literature review included 93 studies.

“This article has presented a literature review on the effect of using Kahoot!for learning, where 93 studies were included.”

May combine two claims.

Of the accepted articles, 97% present mainly positive results related to Kahoot! and 8% include challenges and problems.

“Of the accepted articles, 97% present mainly positive results related to Kahoot! and 8% include challenges and problems.”

The quote only partly states this claim.

Of the 206 articles, 44 (21%) were rejected studies due to lack of description, analysis, no explicit presentation of results, too limited scope, invalid results due to research design or execution, or conclusions not based on data or analysis.

“Rejected studies | 44 (21%) | Lack of description, analysis, no explicit presentation of results, too limited scope, invalid results due to research design or”

• Also stated in: § Appendix D. Uses of a Game-based Student Response System · plain

  “execution, conclusions not based on data or analysis”

May combine two claims.

Positive findings about teachers' perceptions include higher motivation of teachers, ease of use, a motivating tool, support teachers' instructive work in class, can assess students' knowledge in real-time, increases student motivation, stimulate students to speak their point of view in class, can wake up students, increase class participation, and reduce teacher's workload.

“Positive findings include higher motivation of teachers, ease of use, a motivating tool, support teachers' instructive work in class, can assess students' knowledge in real-time, increases student motivation, stimulate students to speak their point of view in class, can wake up students, increase class participation, and reduce teacher's workload.”

May combine two claims.

Several studies reported the importance for students to be anonymous, which can result in reduced stress and a safer environment to fail.

“Several studies reported the importance for students to be anonymous, which can result in reduced stress and a safer environment to fail”

May combine two claims.

The main challenges for teachers were technical issues and challenges, getting the questions and answers right, and scoring based on timing.

“The main challenges were found to be technical issues and challenges, get the questions and answers right and scoring based on timing.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Of the 206 articles, 14 (7%) were presentations only and not a study.

“Presentations | 14 (7%) | Only presentation and not a study”

May combine two claims.

The literature review included four studies that reported statistically significant results related to classroom dynamics, where one showed that the effect on classroom dynamics was reduced from first-time use to after frequent use over five months.

“The literature review included four studies that reported statistically significant results related to classroom dynamics, where one showed that the effect on classroom dynamics was reduced from first-time use to after frequent use over five months.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

The search from digital research databases found 1232 articles, of which 206 were added to the review.

“Total | 1232 | 206”

May combine two claims.

One challenge mentioned by four articles was stressful time-pressure for giving answers and the tendency that some students simply guessed the answer in order to try to get a high score.

“One challenge mentioned by four articles was stressful time-pressure for giving answers and the tendency that some students simply guessed the answer in order to try to get a high score”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Kahoot! focuses more on engagement through a competitive gaming experience than other SRSs.

“The main difference between all the systems mentioned above is that Kahoot!focuses more on engagement through a competitive gaming experience.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

Boredom in a computer learning environment can cause inferior learning and problem behavior.

“Boredom in a computer learning environment can cause inferior learning and problem behavior (Baker, D'Mello, Rodrigo, & Graesser, 2010).”

• cites Baker, D'Mello, Rodrigo, & Graesser, 2010 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

Experiments with early Lecture Quiz prototypes showed that Lecture Quiz increased student motivation, engagement, and perceived learning through entertaining social learning activities.

“Experiments with the early prototypes showed that Lecture Quiz increased student motivation, engagement, and perceived learning through entertaining social learning activities (Wang, Øfsdal, & Mørch-Storstein, 2008;Wu, Wang, Børresen, & Tidemann, 2011).”

• cites Wang, Øfsdal, & Mørch-Storstein, 2008 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source
• cites Wu, Wang, Børresen, & Tidemann, 2011 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

May combine two claims.

Student engagement in lectures improves understanding and academic results.

“Further, there is extensive evidence that student engagement in lectures improves understanding and academic results (Prince, 2004).”

• cites Prince, 2004 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

Games can be beneficial for academic achievement, motivation, and classroom dynamics.

“Games can be beneficial for academic achievement, motivation, and classroom dynamics (Sharples, 2000).”

• cites Sharples, 2000 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S1 (asserted).

Some teachers are afraid that the competitive gaming elements in Kahoot! will create anxiety for students that will ruin their motivation to learn.

“Some teachers are afraid that the competitive gaming elements in Kahoot! will create anxiety for the students that will ruin their motivation to learn (Zarzycka-Piskorz, 2016).”

• cites Zarzycka-Piskorz, 2016Not checked — no full text of the source

May combine two claims.

Lack of motivation can result in a reduction of learning outcomes and a negative atmosphere in the classroom.

“Lack of motivation can result in a reduction of learning outcomes and a negative atmosphere in the classroom (O.L. Liu, Bridgeman, & Adler, 2012).”

• cites O.L. Liu, Bridgeman, & Adler, 2012 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

May combine two claims.

The feedback practices not fully supported in Kahoot! were: ability to assist in clarifying what good performance is; ability to deliver high-quality information to students about their learning; and ability to encourage teacher and peer dialogue around learning.

“The identified feedback practices not fully supported in Kahoot! were 1) Ability to assist in clarifying what good performance is; 2) Ability to deliver high-quality information to students about their learning; and 3) Ability to encourage teacher and peer dialogue around learning.”

• cites Omar, 2017Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

May combine two claims.

A pilot study from South Korea with 51 university students found that Kahoot! improves vocabulary retention while fostering a positive learning environment and a meaningful learning experience.

“Finally, there is a pilot study from South Korea with 51 university students that found that Kahoot!improves vocabulary retention while fostering a positive learning environment and a meaningful learning experience (Taylor & Reynolds, 2018).”

• cites Taylor & Reynolds, 2018Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

May combine two claims. The quote only partly states this claim.

A quasi-experiment with 593 students found that the use of audio and music in Kahoot! had a significant positive impact on classroom dynamics, resulting in an improved atmosphere for oral questions and discussions in class.

“The results showed that the use of audio and music in Kahoot! had a significant positive impact on classroom dynamics, which resulted in an improved atmosphere for oral questions and discussions in class.”

• cites Wang & Lieberoth, 2016Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

A study found that the learner as leader strategy in Kahoot! contributed to enhancing discussions in groups, especially for the leading group, and benefited those who acted as leaders.

“The main finding was that the learner as leader strategy contributed to enhancing discussions in groups, especially for the leading group, and benefited those who acted as leaders.”

• cites Y.-H.Wang, 2017aNot matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites Y.-H.Wang, 2017bNot matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

May combine two claims.

A study comparing paper quiz, Clicker student response system, and Kahoot! for reviewing knowledge revealed significant improvement in motivation (small effect size), engagement (medium effect size), enjoyment (small effect size), and concentration (medium effect size) for the gamified approach, but not significant learning improvement (Wang et al., 2016).

“One study comparing using a paper quiz, a Clicker student response system and Kahoot! for reviewing knowledge, revealed significant improvement in motivation (small effect size), engagement (medium effect size), enjoyment (small effect size), and concentration (medium effect size) for the gamified approach, but not significant learning improvement (Wang et al., 2016).”

• cites Wang et al., 2016Not checked — no full text of the source

May combine two claims.

In a comparison of Clicker and Kahoot!, engagement was significantly better with Kahoot! and answering carefully was significantly better with Clicker (Jones et al., 2018).

“in a comparison of Clicker and Kahoot!-the engagement was significantly better with Kahoot! and answering carefully was significantly better with Clicker (Jones, Harden, Rassias, & Abourashchi, 2018)”

• cites Jones et al., 2018Not checked — no full text of the source

May combine two claims.

Playing Kahoot! frequently over five months did not affect students' engagement, motivation, concentration, and perceived learning negatively compared to the first time it was played, but classroom dynamics were affected (Wang, 2015).

“One result from these articles shows that playing Kahoot!frequently over five months did not affect the students' engagement, motivation, concentration, and perceived learning negatively compared to the first time it was played, but the classroom dynamics were affected (Wang, 2015).”

• cites Wang, 2015 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

May combine two claims.

In a survey among 149 secondary education teachers in Greece introduced to Kahoot!, the most positive findings were that Kahoot! was easy to use (4.81 of 5), a motivating tool for learning (4.63 of 5), supported teachers' instructive work in class (4.01 of 5), assessed students' knowledge (4.64 of 5), and was an exciting tool for teaching (4.45 of 5).

“In a survey, using Likert's scale among 149 secondary education teachers in Greece who were introduced to Kahoot! the most positive findings were that Kahoot! was easy to use (4.81 of 5), it was a motivating tool for learning (4.63 of 5), support teachers' instructive work in class (4.01 of 5), assess students' knowledge (4.64 of 5), and is an exciting tool for teaching (4.45 of 5).”

May combine two claims.

The studies show that for the majority of studies, Kahoot! had a significant positive effect on motivation, concentration, and perceived learning, but not for all studies.

“The studies above show that for the majority of studies, Kahoot! had a significant positive effect on motivation, concentration, perceived learningbut not for all studies.”

May combine two claims.

The use of audio and points in Kahoot! significantly affects (large effect size) students' concentration, engagement, enjoyment, motivation, perceived learning, and classroom dynamics, and using Kahoot! without points and audio gave the worst result (Wang & Lieberoth, 2016).

“Another study found that the use of audio and points in Kahoot!significantly affects (large effect size) the students' concentration, engagement, enjoyment, motivation, perceived learning, and classroom dynamics and that using Kahoot!without points and audio gave the worst result (Wang & Lieberoth, 2016).”

• cites Wang & Lieberoth, 2016Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

May combine two claims.

Kahoot! had a more positive impact on students' engagement than Quizizz but not significant (Göksün & Gürsoy, 2019).

“and Kahoot! had a more positive impact on students' engagement than Quizizzbut not significant (G€ oksün & Gürsoy, 2019).”

• cites Göksün & Gürsoy, 2019 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

Both involved in the critical appraisal process agreed on what articles to reject, although the reasoning for rejecting the two articles was different.

“Both involved in the critical appraisal process agreed on what articles to reject, although the reasoning for rejecting the two articles was different.”

May combine two claims.

Thirty-three other papers all reported improved classroom dynamics from using Kahoot! in the classroom, including improved teacher-student interaction and student-student interaction, more favorable to actively participate in class, improved classroom atmosphere, and easier to answer questions in class.

“However, the thirty-three other papers all reported on improved classroom dynamics from using Kahoot! in the classroom, including the improved teacher-student interaction and student-student interaction, more favorable to actively participate in class, improved classroom atmosphere, and easier to answer questions in class.”

May combine two claims.

To the authors' knowledge, all rejected articles failed to meet the requirements and lacked a description of the research context, lacked a description of results, analysis of data, had conclusions not based on data, or had significant flaws in set-up or execution.

“To our knowledge, all of the rejected articles failed to meet these requirements, and lacked a description of the research context, lacked a description of results, analysis of data, having conclusions not based on data, or had significant flaws in set-up or execution of the study.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

The literature review was carried out according to the review method presented in (Dybå & Dingsøyr, 2008) to ensure maximum literature coverage, include all relevant studies and collect and synthesize the data from these studies in a meaningful way.

“The literature review presented in this article was carried out according to the review method presented in (Dybå & Dingsøyr, 2008) to ensure maximum literature coverage, include all relevant studies and collect and synthesize the data from these studies in a meaningful way.”

• cites Dybå & Dingsøyr, 2008 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

May combine two claims.

The main conclusion is that students have a very positive perception of the use of Kahoot! in learning, including a positive effect on motivation, engagement, concentration, perceived learning, attention, enjoyment, satisfaction, and confidence.

“The main conclusion is that students have a very positive perception of the use of Kahoot! in learning, and these results include a positive effect on motivation, engagement, concentration, perceived learning, attention, enjoyment, satisfaction, and confidence.”

May combine two claims.

Kahoot! had a positive effect on learning both for K-12 and higher education, as well as for language learning, technical and engineering fields, science, math, business, and nursing.

“It was found that Kahoot! had a positive effect on learning both for K-12 and higher education, as well as for language learning, technical and engineering fields, science, math, business, and nursing.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

The search string was simple and should not be a source for leaving out articles.

“In our case, the search string was simple, and should not be a source for leaving out articles.”

May combine two claims.

The generalization of the results of this review is limited to Kahoot! and not to game-based learning or any GSRS in general, and for the context of K-12 and higher education.

“Finally, the generalization of the results of this review is limited to Kahoot! and not to game-based learning or any GSRS in general, and for the context of K-12 and higher education.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

The process of creating realistic incorrect answers requires students to think critically.

“This process requires students to think critically (Bryant et al., 2018).”

• cites Bryant et al., 2018 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

The filter used was to check if the articles described a study, and then articles with studies were checked for relevance (scope), rigor, and credibility.

“The filter used was to check if the articles described a study, and then articles with studies were checked for relevance (scope), rigor, and credibility.”

May combine two claims.

The main conclusion of the literature review is that Kahoot! has a positive effect on learning, but there are challenges and room for improvement.

“The main conclusion of our literature review is that Kahoot! has a positive effect on learning, but there are challenges and room for improvement.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

The filtering process was carried out independently by the two authors.

“This process was carried out independently by the two authors of this article.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

By searching Google Scholar, Science Direct, Wiley InterScience, Web of Science, and Scopus, the coverage should be satisfactory.

“There might be some studies we did not find in our literature search, but we believe the by searching Google Scholar, Science Direct, Wiley InterScience, Web of Science, and Scopus, the coverage should be satisfactory.”